Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:43:08 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Subject: Re: Let's use gcc-4.2, not 4.1 -- OpenMP Message-ID: <458235EC.80300@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20061215044453.GB9381@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20061213192150.CF83D16A417@hub.freebsd.org> <20061214183026.GA1532@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4581A3E3.9060807@samsco.org> <200612151450.39260.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20061215044453.GB9381@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Kargl wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 02:50:30PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > >>On Friday 15 December 2006 05:50, Scott Long wrote: >> >>>Yes, the industry moves fast, but that's no reason to fool ourselves >>>into thinking that the FSF will support GCC 4.2 a day after they release >>>4.3 and start working on 4.4. Your point above about the lifespan of >>>FreeBSD 7.x is a valid one, and I agree that it should be a >>>consideration. Vendor support is a myth and should not be a >>>consideration. >> >>Not to mention it is *trivial* to install a compiler using ports or packages. >> >>If you are serious about high performance computing installing a new compiler >>is about the lowest barrier you'll find. >> > > > Actually, 4.1.x will produce much worse code than 3.4.6. > You can search the gcc mail listings for extensive comparison > by Clinton Whaley (the author of math/atlas) for details. > Has this been fixed in GCC 4.2? If the FSF claims to have fixed it, has it been actually verified? I thought that gcc 4 was supposed to solve the world's problems with vectorization. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?458235EC.80300>